About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
-carrying member of the aarp. ronald reagan was 69 when he first ran for president. many worried he was too old for the job until his famous quip during a debate. >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. >> yes, reagan used age to his advantage. but seriously, how old is too old? remember senator strom thurman who commuted from walter reed to the capitol at the age of 100? his aides had to vote for him. of course, this argument isn't limited to the world of politics. ageism rages in the role world, too. how often have you heard those under 30 grumbling about those old guys sucking up all the jobs? so the talk back question of the day, should politicians have a mandatory retirement age? facebook.com/carolcnn. your responses later this hour. still the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road. and now we've also been recognized for lowest total cost of ownership -- based on important things, like depreciation, fuel, and maintenance costs. and now trade up to get a 2012 chevy silv
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)